Michael Cheika

[Lorenzo]

If there are KPIs that give the employer an opportunity to terminate the contract earlier, how does that interact with a long-term strategy? Surely it pushes a short-term winning mentality because otherwise the coach might lose their job.

I'd also suggest that putting these KPIs in a contract would either cost the employer a huge amount to add them (because they greatly reduce security for the employee) or they'd be too easy to meet to be worthwhile (because otherwise, why would you accept them).

I think it is unrealistic to think that contract clauses to make it easier to fire a coach mid contract at no cost can easily be added to a contract. Why would any coach who is a desirable hire for the employer acquiesce to that?

Well for one thing, this is a 1.2m a year gig for a tier 1 test side. Let's quit acting like any coach we hire is doing us a favour.

How many other tier 1 test side jobs at 1.2m a season are actually on offer at the moment?

It's perfectly reasonable to include some 2 year KPIs so we can avoid a dumpster fire. If the next coach is below 60% 55% or 50% (whatever the number might be) after two years then he should be released. If candidates don't like that, they don't have to apply. Frankly, if they arent confident they can turn the boat around at least a little bit in 2 years I'd rather not have them.

You talk about pricing seemingly on the basis thay the Cheika contract was well priced. How do you know that it was? He came in at a time when everything had gone wrong and then negotiated an extension on the back of the RWC. Put less delicately, he bent Pulver over.

So maybe with the benefit of no tests for 8 months, we can work on getting deal with attractive terms?

 

[I like to watch]

They’re not doing us a favour.
But RA is also in competition with a myriad of other entities for the latest “must have” coach.

If your suggestion is that the coach can take a punt on the Wobbly system for 2 years, or take a guaranteed contract with someone else for a longer term. Many will take the longer option.
Bear in mind, they probably get to coach the squad of their choice in year 3 or so.

What if Cheika had just extended the Tahs underperformers (Foley,Phipps,Hanigan et al) and the new guy had 12 or more of these guys on the books for the next 2 years?
Who would want to be measured on results,if they were stuck with a dozen of these types of guys in their squad for the next two years?

 

[Lorenzo]

They’re not doing us a favour.
But RA is also in competition with a myriad of other entities for the latest “must have” coach.

If your suggestion is that the coach can take a punt on the Wobbly system for 2 years, or take a guaranteed contract with someone else for a longer term. Many will take the longer option.
Bear in mind, they probably get to coach the squad of their choice in year 3 or so.

International jobs are prestigious, even our one. That provides us with some bargaining power. Also, it's a very high paying rugby coaching job. Additionally, the way the team has been so poorly coached, it is almost a unique opportunity to make some easy gains.

The next coach is not going to have a materially different pool of players in 3 years. They might be different names, but he is still choosing from Australian pro rugby players. I fully expect that if the coach comes in on day one and thinks none of the 23 from 2 weeks ago are up to it, then he doesn't select any of them.

What if Cheika had just extended the Tahs underperformers (Foley,Phipps,Hanigan et al) and the new guy had 12 or more of these guys on the books for the next 2 years?
Who would want to be measured on results,if they were stuck with a dozen of these types of guys in their squad for the next two years?

If Cheika had done that, I, er, might have a different view on the matter? All sorts of hypotheticals could change how I see the situation. In any event, why would the next coach be obliged to play Hanigan (or whoever) just because he has a contract? He can pick anyone that's eligible. This isn't like the NFL where u can only sign 55 guys and a new coach might be stuck with 35 players from the old regime.

 

[molman]

Well for one thing, this is a 1.2m a year gig for a tier 1 test side.

Question. Where does that figure come from?

 

[I like to watch]

Mate,there is a budget.
If the incoming coach doesn’t rate a dozen or so on Wallaby’s contracts, he can’t make them disappear, nor can he increase the size of the squad by 12 so they never ever wear the Gold again.

He can replace each one, as their contract matures.

Whose going to agree to performance hurdles in their initial 2 years to keep their job, in that scenario?

 

[Lorenzo]

Mate,there is a budget.
If the incoming coach doesn’t rate a dozen or so on Wallaby’s contracts, he can’t make them disappear, nor can he increase the size of the squad by 12 so they never ever wear the Gold again.

So you don't think previously uncapped players are prepared to play for the $10,000 per match test for their first year?

As if this is relevant anyway. Give all the players that are off contract and the termination of Folau, we probably have less than half the wallaby top-up payroll we had 18months ago. This is probably the best position we've ever been in when it comes to freed up wallaby spots.

 

[Lorenzo]

Question. Where does that figure come from?

Cheika was on a base salary of $1.2 million a season. A figure commensurate with the coaches of other tier-one rugby nations



https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...t-cruelled-the-wallabies-20191025-p5347d.html

 

[molman]

Cheika was on a base salary of $1.2 million a season. A figure commensurate with the coaches of other tier-one rugby nations



https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...t-cruelled-the-wallabies-20191025-p5347d.html

Tah. I'd seen around 1mil pa for Cheika but had missed a specific figure.

 

[Adam84]

I think any incoming Wallaby coach would be pretty happy with the players signed to long term contracts, and the flexibility he has in the remaining positions to secure players in upgraded contracts as they emerge.

 

[Viking]

Mate,there is a budget.
If the incoming coach doesn’t rate a dozen or so on Wallaby’s contracts, he can’t make them disappear, nor can he increase the size of the squad by 12 so they never ever wear the Gold again.

He can replace each one, as their contract matures.

Whose going to agree to performance hurdles in their initial 2 years to keep their job, in that scenario?

Thorne dropped Cooper and he's only a super xv coach. Can't see why a wallabies coach can't decide not to pick players too. It's a pretty shit budget if you they didn't budget for new players. Pretty sure that's why it's called a budget.

budget.

 

[Rebelsfan]

Cheika was on a base salary of $1.2 million a season. A figure commensurate with the coaches of other tier-one rugby nations



https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...t-cruelled-the-wallabies-20191025-p5347d.html

oh wow

 

[wamberal]

oh wow

How much do you believe Tier 1 coaches should be paid?

 

[dru]

How much do you believe Tier 1 coaches should be paid?

It's not at all silly money for the WBs coach. Whether Cheika was worth it is another matter entirely.

 

[wamberal]

It's not at all silly money for the WBs coach. Whether Cheika was worth it is another matter entirely.

Too true. On the other hand, how much was he worth? A negative sum, maybe?

 

[Froggy]

With the resume he came to the job with, Cheika would have commanded that salary anywhere, and even in the early stages of his tenure. I have said it before and I'll say it again, he is a three year coach. He lifts culture and motivation, fitness, and has a single game plan that works for a little while if he has the right players (ie forwards like Potgeiter, Douglas, Palu & TPN). After that, he needs to move on.

 

[Rebelsfan]

How much do you believe Tier 1 coaches should be paid?

an interesting question - it should take into account the total coaching cost base, the value add that the coach produces and the resources of the team
and a base salary with win incentives would be a good idea - always good to have some skin in the game youself

 

[wamberal]

Funnily enough I was part of a salary assessment exercise for a very large sporting organisation many years ago. It was led by a firm of consultants whose name back then was Hays Associates, they put a small team of specialists into the exercise and the organisation I worked for also allocated four or five of its own staff to work alongside them. I was one of them. (Hays are still going strong, although these days they concentrate more on recruitment).

They had a very comprehensive system which analysed every job in the organisation and because they had built up a huge set of data were able to determine the relative worth of every position, the results were calibrated according to a number of objective factors and also a couple of subjective ones: the latter were more interesting, for example, where does the organisation want to pitch itself in the market?


These days I am certain that every big executive search organisation knows pretty much what every important job is worth, and what every potential recruit earns.

 

[Derpus]

Mate,there is a budget.
If the incoming coach doesn’t rate a dozen or so on Wallaby’s contracts, he can’t make them disappear, nor can he increase the size of the squad by 12 so they never ever wear the Gold again.

He can replace each one, as their contract matures.

Whose going to agree to performance hurdles in their initial 2 years to keep their job, in that scenario?

Half the team has retired and most of the players retained are quality. Front row - quality. Rodda, naisarani, MK, etc all quality.

Plus a load of talented youngsters coming through.

Whoever comes in probably has more scope to shape the Wallabies than any other coach has had for decades.

 

[fatprop]

Bit of trivia, Laurie Fisher is on the Rugby Ruckus Podcast, Cheika tried to get him involved in the Wobs back for the last RWC, but couldn't get out of his contract

 

[RugbyReg]

thanks Brumbies